In our PN exchange we were concerned with contrasting Ni vs Ne and Fe vs Fi, this is also the subject of this thread, so i assume i can proceed here. Posting these ideas in public is advantageous to all of us, it allows for others to chime in, in case we are getting it all wrong. I take the liberty to bend a forum rule a tad, none of these quotes are personal after all.
>Ni is a knowing without motion it is the sum total 4D above time so what Feeling is in time in people and objects would see Ni as you see Ni as being the motion but is really above it.
Intuition creates our comprehension of process and dominant Ni ought to be, to a degree, aware of how that is happening, so i agree with you in that it ought to be beyond time, as you put it. Much like dominant Fi can be, to a degree, above it's values, as it sees all values in perspective to each other and therefore as not ultimately real.
However such transcendence is only a potential and not a default. Much if not most content from dominant functions appears to arise unconsciously, it presents itself as a fact out of nowhere, not as a choice or construct.
I used to be convinced that Fi can not possibly be my dominant function, when i held the believe that dominant functions must be conscious. Since i am unable of knowing or owning the major motives behind my major inhibitions in life, my social anxieties, my consciousness does not transcend Fi altogether. Fi is not fully self-aware. What it transcends must be just like the peak of the iceberg.
Similarly what processes Ni considers itself to be beyond is surely not truly ALL processes, but a chunk of processes that is of current interest, unless perhaps in the case of awakened mind.
Carl Jung describes how Ni types will often assume that their intuitions are facts about the outside world, not subjective facts.
Just like i grew up feeling that for example values like good and bad are real things, Ni tends to assume that spiritual concepts (meaning comprehensions of psychological process), such as reincarnation, are really and literally happening in the objective world. When it is likely, that they are not. I consider it likely, that they are derived from the dreaming mind, that incarnates into episodes of a specific focus and context, during this physical life. For example: Now you imagine that you are a cowboby who faces a rattle snake. This leads you to imagine that you are a rattle snake, facing a cowboy. Your mind has just reincarnated into a new subjective process. So your mind 'feels' that incarnation is a real thing. It is. And yet, when you die, that's probably the end of all incarnations. The way i see it anyways.
I think humans can never get beyond projecting laws of their psyche into what they consider to be the universe, objective reality. But our objective reality is just a product of the brain, as much as it may be inspired by sensory stimuli and all we project into it are the principles of how our brain creates this reality inside of itself.
I find that about 80% of my Ni friends have a believe in reincarnation related concepts like "Hey, i know you are an old soul." Which i translate trough my iconoclastic Ne to mean: "Hey, i see you have a bigger experience with taking perspectives than the average person."
To them, it seems, there is a strong association between perspective taking skills and experience. To me not so much, i rather associate perspectives with each other.
Actually, as i write this, i have a suspicion, that i got something confused. There is an inconsistency of ideas. I generally assume that extroversion should be 'in the doing', in the situation, which is time. And introversion should be in 'the doer', in a set of motives or possibilities, in a map of subjective substance. If this is so, should i not believe, that a person, who associates perspective with experience (unfolding of situations), is holing an extroverted point of view?
Perhaps i was just projecting something into their statements about old souls. Yes, this seems plausible. I was projecting my emphasis on the aspect of 'oldness' (of soul), which indicates a serious objective fact to me. Perhaps they ignore it in unconscious manner, because they are uncritical about the objective (extroverted) aspects of intuition. Perhaps their avoidance of Ne makes it difficult for them to be critical about what makes sense in the objective world and what not. Perhaps all their attention is on the aspect of the "soul" concept, which is a concept of body or substance of subject. Perhaps they only try to make the point, that my many perspectives do belong to a subject, named soul, as opposed to reality.
Whereas i am much inclined to assume that my perspectives are impersonal, floating around between humans, like viruses that are being transmitted, inspired by external realities.
And they irritate me by calling it 'old' soul for no good reason. But my perspectives, or rather this particular accumulation of perspectives is my soul, i agree with that.
I would much rather call it 'big' soul, than 'old' soul.
Not to boast or anything, these words (big, old) are all relative to whomever anyhow.
>So Ni-Fi see where things were but also where they go.
to draw the analogy: Fi sees what other values are possible, for an item, based on what other values were assigned in the past and how they relate, for example when one thing becomes favorable, it's opposite thing looses favor.
and perhaps Ni would comprehend what subjective events of ideation lead to a change of value. when new ideas arise, old ideas appear rotten. there is a right time to be inspired and it comes only once. you have to assert the opportunity through Fe or Te immediately.
this would probably be a very philosophical intuition, when it's concerned with Fi values.
whereas in the case of Fe, Ni would comprehend what subjective events of ideation lead to a change of outward motivation, just now. This would be more like the intuition that a psychologist requires, when he analyses what is happening in a dialog with a person.
for example i just saw this fascinating video from fritz perls, wherein he interviews a woman who appears to be ENFJ to me and i think he himself might be infj and they both make attempts to analyze each other in a similar way and compete very much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y5tuJ3Sojc
>So you will know the person, what they could do, but i know what you will do, not a prophesy, but the interior of a locket, who you were, where you came from, not personal history and who you become.
yes, i know what you mean. Ni can form a locket of someone's life journey, when they learn objective facts about someones history (or perhaps someones current behavior, such as gestures), that are apprehended through Se.
how the pod'lair guy Thomas has learned to associate body movements with cognition is a remarkable feature to me, it's very hard for me to do this and i think it is such a process of connecting Se with Ni. Si is not looking at body movements, so i can't learn to associate them with my Ne based understanding of process, easily. but i do pick up on static aspects of gesture and mimics.
Fi can collect a locket (picture) of someones collected motivations and values, a picture of what is accepted and what is repressed and a Ne-Te perception of how they go about expressing their values and motivations (how their mind works to interpret their motivations). so Fi has it's own way of accurately predicting a different aspect of behavior. i can hardly tell what people where people will head with their lives, including myself, but i can know very well how they will respond to particular situations, granted i have learned about how they think and feel about some things.
> Ni is the totality of knowing what is the unconscious not flowing. I encounter you and you are reveled.
I think you are saying that If i were a clockwork (something process driven), it would be like you can see it and comprehend it, upon spotting some facts about me. Realistically speaking this must involve a lot of projection of how you see and comprehend yourself as a clockwork.
I can relate to this, because FiNe is similar, in principle, again.
Perhaps Ni and Ne notice different aspects of the clockwork, that someone is.
A clockwork is a blueprint of HOW something flows.
>Fe is aspect of the motion not entirely to you but to society. How you can be of use , put on a path, not known what path you take yourself, for or against Fe; and Fi will see the inside channels but Fe the outer limitations, attunement not vortex within.
i'm sceptical.
i use to think that i am using Fe, because i feel so limited by the Fe that other people put out there, as if being in tune with it means using Fe. but now i think i am Fi and my Fi is naturally hyper aware of Fe, because the subjective aspect of F does not want to get burned by the objective fact of F and after all both Fe and Fe are just aspects of F, it's one single organ of the mind, that is approached with I or E attitude.
so i don't know what you mean by outer limitations, but i don't perceive Fe as limited, unless we are talking inferior Fe. It's not like Fe are solely slaves to laws of society, they actually create those laws, when they are authentic, by demanding situative respect, for example, as seen in the video with fritz perls.
they criticize behavior, they attack and compete, they seek the upper hand in the situation, in interaction. it's not about being conventionally neat at all. being neat is a sought after state, but Fe plays all states.
being locked entirely into obeying neat conventions or limitations (such as wearing sunday school uniform instead of going to a party) is probably an ixfp and isxj trait, motivated by how Si avoids conflict.
so i would correct you and say that Fe is not "society", but situation, interaction.
if someone gets angry at you, for example, you ought to be compelled to deal with this, by also getting angry, asserting your boundaries in competition. this would be Fe. if someone is truly neat with you, you appreciate that, regardless of how alien the values background of that person is. for example Fe individuals are more likely to develop good rapport with a business man, a guru from india, a homeless person, as long as they only act properly, differences don't matter. this way Fe creates the possibility for society and much of it's tiny demands but not solid laws and conventions, like sunday school dressing.
Fi avoids the competition of boundaries. if it's not angry at the person for a real reason, it would much rather not add fuel to the fire. so Fi is automatically repressing Fe.
but it's not black and white in a person, nobody can be 100% Fi or Fe all of the time. however individuals with Fi "want" Fi and "think" they have to do Fe also (or they think they are not allowed to) and individuals with Fe preference "want" Fe and "think" they ought to do Fi as well (unless they think they are not allowed to).
i feel like inserting a quote by adyashanti, which may be a good example of a snapshot of process or clockwork, as taken by Ni. i mean how he visualises this stuff as "orbiting".
At the core of the false self is a void of deficiency derived from an essential turning away from one’s own divinity, either out of natural development, despair, or simply by succumbing to the trance of the world with all its masks of deception and harsh obligation to conform to its insanity. The false self orbits around this vacuous abyss at its core, in silent terror of its name- less, faceless threat of oblivion.
- Adyashanti
i have enough Ni to understand it to a degree, just like i have enough Fe to understand Fe. it's all just N and F. it's just that my attitude tends to move away from Ni and Fe, so i don't come by there all of the time. but it's clearly a part of me.
now on to discussing whether Fi ought to be seen as empathy (this is also a reply to something TMills said in the 'inferior Fe' thread)
(insert other post here)
nope, actually i need a break right now. perhaps this thread isn't ideal to explore that question anyway.
